AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Plaintiff underwent a laminectomy and discectomy performed by Dr. Hankinson to treat a herniated disc. Post-surgery, Plaintiff experienced severe abdominal pain, leading to the discovery of a vascular injury. Plaintiff sued Defendant, alleging Dr. Hankinson's negligence during surgery caused the injury (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge: Granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the issue of Dr. Hankinson’s negligent surgical technique (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that Dr. Hankinson's surgical technique was negligent, leading to a vascular injury. Plaintiff supported their motion for summary judgment with affidavits from two neurosurgeons (paras 6, 8).
• Defendant: Contended that Dr. Hankinson met the standard of care and that the injury was a known complication of the surgery. Defendant's opposition was supported by an affidavit from neurosurgeon Dr. Andrea Halliday (paras 6, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment on the issue of Dr. Hankinson’s negligent surgical technique.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to strike testimony by treating physician Dr. Mark Reininga due to non-disclosure prior to trial (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the affidavit offered by Defendant was conclusory and that Defendant waived objections to Dr. Reininga’s testimony by not timely requesting a mistrial (para 1).

Reasons

• Majority Opinion (Cynthia A. Fry, Judge; Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring): Concluded that Dr. Halliday's affidavit did not establish a genuine issue for trial as it was conclusory and lacked specific facts. The court also held that Defendant waived its objections to Dr. Reininga’s testimony by not making a timely motion to strike (paras 10-11, 19).
  Dissenting Opinion (Michael E. Vigil, Judge): Argued that Dr. Halliday's affidavit was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact and disagreed with the majority's handling of the procedural aspects regarding Dr. Reininga’s testimony. The dissent emphasized New Mexico's policy favoring trials on the merits and criticized the majority for establishing new grounds to invalidate an opposing affidavit in a medical malpractice case without citing relevant New Mexico authority (paras 22-33).